Border Searches of Laptop Computers and Other Electronic Storage Devices
|
|
- Ashley Beasley
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Border Searches of Laptop Computers and Other Electronic Storage Devices Yule Kim Legislative Attorney July 28, 2009 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress RL34404
2 Summary As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires governmentconducted searches and seizures to be supported by probable cause and a warrant. Federal courts have long recognized that there are many exceptions to these requirements, one of which is the border search exception. The border search exception permits government officials to conduct routine searches based on no suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever. On the other hand, when warrantless border searches are particularly invasive, and thus non-routine, they are permissible only when customs officials have, at a minimum, a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. The federal courts that have addressed this issue have held that the border search exception applies to searches of laptops at the border. Although the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the degree of suspicion needed to search laptops at the border without a warrant, the federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue appear to have concluded that reasonable suspicion is not needed to justify such a search. The Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Arnold, explicitly held that reasonable suspicion is not required to conduct a warrantless search of a laptop at the border. A bill introduced in the 111 th Congress, the Securing our Borders and our Data Act of 2009 (H.R. 239), would impose more rigorous standards for laptop searches than those the federal courts have determined are constitutionally required. Another bill introduced in the 111 th Congress, the Border Security Search Accountability Act of 2009 (H.R. 1726), would mandate that the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection promulgate a rule with respect to the scope of and procedural and record keeping requirements associated with border security searches of electronic devices. Congressional Research Service
3 Contents Introduction...1 Border Search Exception...1 Judicial Developments on Laptop Searches...3 United States v. Ickes...4 United States v. Romm...5 United States v. Arnold...6 United States v. Seljan...7 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Policy on Border Laptop Searches...8 Conclusion...9 Legislative Proposals...10 Contacts Author Contact Information...11 Congressional Research Service
4 Introduction A developing issue in the law of search and seizure is whether the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permits warrantless searches of the content of laptop computers and other electronic storage devices at U.S. borders. The federal courts that have addressed this issue have held that the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment applies to these searches, making warrantless searches permissible. Although most of these courts did not make explicit the degree of suspicion needed to initiate such a search, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was the first to rule that the Fourth Amendment does not require reasonable suspicion, or, for that matter, any suspicion of wrongdoing at all, to justify a warrantless search of laptops at the border. Border Search Exception The Fourth Amendment mandates that a search or seizure conducted by a government agent must be reasonable. 1 As a general rule, courts have construed Fourth Amendment reasonableness as requiring probable cause 2 and a judicially granted warrant. 3 Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to these requirements, one of which is the border search exception. 4 The border search exception to the Fourth Amendment allows federal government officials to conduct searches at the border without a warrant or probable cause. Although Congress and the federal courts have long assumed, at least implicitly, the existence of a border search exception, 5 the Supreme Court did not formally recognize it until it decided Ramsey v. United States in In Ramsey, the Supreme Court approved the search of several suspicious envelopes (later found to contain heroin) conducted by a customs official pursuant to search powers authorized by statute. 7 The Court determined that the customs official had reasonable cause to suspect 8 1 U.S. Const. Amend. IV. 2 The Supreme Court has interpreted probable cause to mean a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). See also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996). 3 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) ( [S]earches conducted outside the judicial process without prior approval by judge or magistrate are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions. ). 4 For a more expansive treatment of the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment, see CRS Report RL31826, Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment, by Yule Kim. 5 See Act of July 31, 1789, ch , 1 Stat. 29, 43 (authorizing customs officials full power and authority to enter and search any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed... ); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, (1925) ( Travellers may be so stopped in crossing an international boundary because of national self-protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in. ). Accord Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973); United States v Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973); United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971); Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) U.S. 606, 619 (1977). 7 Id. at Reasonable cause to suspect appears to be equivalent to reasonable suspicion, which is simply a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person of wrongdoing. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1978). Congressional Research Service 1
5 suspicious activity when searching the envelopes. 9 This standard, while less stringent than probable cause, was sufficient justification. 10 The border search exception has subsequently been expanded beyond persons, objects, and mail entering the United States, to cover individuals and objects departing from the United States 11 and to apply in places deemed the functional equivalent of a border, such as international airports. 12 As the border search exception has further developed in case law, lower federal courts have recognized two different categories of border searches: routine and non-routine. This distinction is based on language in United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, where the Supreme Court determined the level of suspicion needed to justify a seizure of an incoming traveler for purposes other than a routine border search. 13 In that case, customs officials detained a traveler whom they suspected of smuggling drugs. 14 The customs officials eventually obtained a court order authorizing a rectal examination, which produced a balloon containing cocaine. 15 The Court held that, even though the detention was beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, the customs officials reasonable suspicion that the suspect was smuggling drugs provided sufficient justification for the search. 16 Federal courts have since interpreted this case to stand for the proposition that reasonable suspicion (i.e., a particularized and objective basis for suspecting wrongdoing) is required to justify similarly invasive searches. 17 Although the Court in Montoya de Hernandez focused on a non-routine detention of a traveler at the border, lower federal courts, interpreting dictum in that case, began distinguishing unusually intrusive searches from routine searches. 18 These courts thereby expanded the border search exception by concluding that a customs official may conduct routine warrantless searches of persons or effects without any reason for suspicion. 19 The Supreme Court further U.S. at Id. at 619 ( This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless reasonable has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself. ). 11 See United States v. Berisha, 925 F.2d 791, 795 (5 th Cir. 1991) (extending the border search exception to routine outbound searches); United States v. Stanley, 545 F.2d 661, 667 (9 th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 917 (1978); United States v. Ezeiruaku, 936 F.2d 136, 143 (3 d Cir. 1991); United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 977 (9 th Cir. 1982); United States v. Ajlouny, 629 F.2d 830, 834 (2 d Cir. 1980). 12 See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, (1973); United States v. Hill, 939 F.2d 934, 936 (11 th Cir. 1991); United States v. Gaviria, 805 F.2d 1108, 1112 (2 d Cir. 1986). In the context of international airports, the border search exception only applies to searches of persons and effects on international flights, whereas the administrative search exception, which applies to routine searches with purposes unrelated to law enforcement, is used to justify searches of persons and effects on domestic flights. See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, (9 th Cir. 1973) U.S. 531, 541 (1985) ( We have not previously decided what level of suspicion would justify a seizure of an incoming traveler for purposes other than a routine border search. ). 14 Id. at Id. 16 Id. at 541 ( We hold that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal. ). 17 See United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 154 citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 ( And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. ). 18 Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. at 538 ( Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant, and first-class mail may be opened without a warrant on less than probable cause. ). 19 See United States v. Ezeiruaku, 936 F.2d 136 (3 d Cir. 1991); Berisha, 925 F.2d 791. See also United States v. (continued...) Congressional Research Service 2
6 developed this doctrine in United States v. Flores-Montano, in which it held that the disassembly and examination of an automobile gasoline tank at the border did not have to be justified by any suspicion of wrongdoing. 20 The Court concluded that the gasoline tank search was no more intrusive than a routine vehicle search because there was no heightened expectation of privacy surrounding the contents of a gasoline tank; this conclusion was reached even though the search involved a time-consuming disassembly of the vehicle. 21 Flores-Montano illustrates that extensive, time-consuming, and potentially destructive warrantless searches of objects and effects can be conducted without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. In summary, Supreme Court precedent currently indicates that federal border officers do not need any suspicion of wrongdoing to support most border searches. An exception arises, however, with respect to highly intrusive, non-routine searches. These searches require reasonable suspicion. 22 Yet, the precise level of intrusion that would render a border search non-routine is undefined in the case law. 23 Typically, this question is dealt with in a fact-specific manner on a case-by-case basis. 24 Nonetheless, Flores-Montano indicates that, unlike a search of a person s body, intrusiveness may not be a dispositive factor when determining whether the search of a vehicle or personal effects requires reasonable suspicion. Thus, it appears that in most cases, courts are likely to uphold that even very invasive searches of personal property can be conducted without a warrant and be based on no suspicion whatsoever. 25 Judicial Developments on Laptop Searches With the advent of portable computing, it is now common practice for travelers to store their data on laptop computers, compact discs, and other electronic storage devices and to travel with them across the U.S. border. In response, customs officials have been searching and seizing such devices. The issue confronting federal courts is whether the border search exception applies to electronic storage devices, and if it does, what degree of suspicion is needed to justify a warrantless search. The Supreme Court has yet to address this issue. Most lower federal courts, however, have concluded that searches of laptops, computer disks, and other electronic storage devices fall under (...continued) Chaplinksi, 579 F.2d 373 (5 th Cir. 1978); United States v. Lincoln, 494 F.2d 833 (9 th Cir. 1974); United States v. Chavarria, 493 F.2d 935 (5 th Cir. 1974); United States v. King, 483 F.2d 353 (10 th Cir. 1973) U.S. 149, 154 (2004). 21 Id. ( It is difficult to imagine how the search of a gas tank, which should be solely a repository for fuel, could be more of an invasion of privacy than the search of the automobile s passenger compartment. ). 22 See id. citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 ( And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. ). 23 See id. at 541 n Id. (requiring reasonable suspicion for the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection). See also Henderson v. United States, 390 F.2d 805 (9 th Cir. 1967) (holding that strip searches may be conducted only upon a real suspicion); United States v. Adekunle, 980 F.2d 985 (5 th Cir. 1992), on reh g, 2 F.3d 559 (5 th Cir. 1993) (requiring reasonable suspicion to justify a strip search); United States v. Asbury, 586 F.2d 973, (2 d Cir. 1978) (requiring reasonable suspicion for strip searches); Rivas v. United States, 368 F.2d 703 (9 th Cir. 1966) (requiring a clear indication of the possession of narcotics to justify an alimentary canal search). 25 Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 152. Congressional Research Service 3
7 the border search exception, which means neither a warrant nor probable cause is necessary to support the search. 26 Nonetheless, these courts have not explicitly established the degree of suspicion required to justify a warrantless search of a laptop at the border; rather, courts have avoided the issue by finding that reasonable suspicion supported the particular searches before them. 27 Even in the one instance a court held that a laptop search was routine, it also found that reasonable suspicion supported the search. 28 The one exception to this trend is United States v. Arnold, in which the Ninth Circuit explicitly held that reasonable suspicion was not needed to support a warrantless border search of laptops and other electronic storage devices. 29 Because laptop border search cases are a developing area of case law, a full understanding of this issue requires a closer look at the facts of these cases and the approaches the courts used in their analyses. United States v. Ickes One of the first federal appellate cases to discuss searches of laptops at the border is United States v. Ickes. 30 In Ickes, a customs official, without a warrant, searched the defendant s van near the Canadian border after discovering during a routine search a videotape that focused excessively on a young ballboy during a tennis match. 31 His suspicions raised, the official requested the assistance of a colleague. They then proceeded to conduct a more thorough search in which they uncovered marijuana paraphernalia, a photo album containing child pornography, a computer, and several computer disks. 32 Other customs officials proceeded to examine the contents of the computer and disks, all of which contained additional child pornography. 33 The defendant later filed a motion, which was denied by the trial court, seeking to suppress the contents of the computer and disks on both First and Fourth Amendment grounds. 34 The Fourth Circuit held that the search of the defendant s computer and disks did not violate either the Fourth or First Amendment. Regarding the Fourth Amendment challenge, the court noted that the border search exception applied in this case. 35 The court concluded by opining that 26 See, e.g., United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501, 505 (4 th Cir. 2005); United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990, 997 (9 th Cir. 2006); United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110, 123 (2 d Cir. 2006) ( An airport is considered the functional equivalent of a border and thus a search there may fit within the border search exception. ); United States v. Furukawa, No , slip op. (D. Minn., November 16, 2006), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83767; United States v. Hampe, No B-W, slip op. (D. Me., April 18, 2007), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS See, e.g., Irving, 452 F.3d at 124 ( Because these searches were supported by reasonable suspicion, we need not determine whether they were routine or non-routine. ); Furukawa, slip op. at *1-2 ( [T]he court need not determine whether a border search of a laptop is routine for purposes of the Fourth Amendment because, regardless, the magistrate judge correctly found the customs official had a reasonable suspicion in this case. ). 28 Ickes, 393 F.3d at 507 (noting that the computer search did not begin until the customs agents found marijuana paraphernalia and child pornography which raised a reasonable suspicion); Hampe, slip op. at *4-5 (holding that even though the laptop search did not implicate any of the serious concerns that would characterize a search as non-routine, the peculiar facts of the case gave rise to reasonable suspicions) F.3d 1003, 1008 (2008) ( We are satisfied that reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage device at the border. ) F.3d 501 (4 th Cir. 2005). 31 Id. at Id. at Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. at 505. Congressional Research Service 4
8 [a]s a practical matter, computer searches are most likely to occur where as here the traveler s conduct or the presence of other items in his possession suggest the need to search further, indicating that the court believed that such searches will typically occur only when a customs official has reasonable suspicion. 36 The court also rejected the defendant s contention that the First Amendment bars the border search exception from being applied to expressive materials. The court stated that a First Amendment exception would create a sanctuary for all expressive materials including terrorist plans, and that it would cause an excessive amount of administrative difficulties for those who would have to enforce it. 37 United States v. Romm The Ninth Circuit has also addressed this issue in United States v. Romm. 38 The defendant in that case had arrived at an airport in British Columbia when a Canadian customs agent, after discovering that he had a criminal history, searched the defendant s laptop. 39 During the search, the Canadian customs agent uncovered child pornography sites in the laptop s internet history ; the defendant was consequently denied entry into Canada and flown to Seattle. 40 The Canadian authorities informed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the contents of the defendant s laptop. When the defendant arrived in Seattle, ICE detained the defendant and convinced him to allow ICE agents to examine his laptop without a warrant. 41 ICE agents then used a forensic analysis, which recovered deleted child pornography from the laptop. The defendant later filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his laptop, which the trial court denied. 42 The Ninth Circuit held that the forensic analysis used by the ICE agents fell under the border search exception. 43 The court noted that airport terminals were the functional equivalents of a border, allowing customs agents to conduct routine border searches of all deplaning passengers. 44 The court then stated that all passengers deplaning from an international flight are subject to routine border searches. 45 Because the defendant failed to brief the argument that the First Amendment implications of warrantless laptop searches render such searches non-routine, the court did not consider that argument. 46 The court instead presumed that the search of the defendant s laptop was a part of a routine search conducted after deplaning from an international flight. 47 However, because the court made this conclusion solely because the 36 Id. at Id. at F.3d 990 (9 th Cir. 2006). 39 Id. at Id. 41 Id. 42 Id. 43 Id. at Id. at Id. 46 Id. 47 Id. at 997. Congressional Research Service 5
9 defendant failed to brief his argument, the court s determination that the search was routine had no precedential effect. 48 United States v. Arnold In United States v. Arnold, another Ninth Circuit case, the court, apparently disregarding the traditional routine/non-routine distinction used in most border search cases, expressly held that reasonable suspicion was not required to support the warrantless laptop border search at issue. 49 Here, the defendant had returned from the Philippines when he underwent secondary questioning at the airport after having passed through the first customs checkpoint. 50 The customs agent, without a warrant, ordered the defendant to turn on the computer so she could see if it was functioning. 51 While the defendant s luggage was being inspected, another customs agent searched the laptop s contents and found pictures of nude adult women. 52 The defendant was then detained for several hours while special agents from ICE conducted a more extensive search of the laptop and discovered material they believed to be child pornography. 53 The Ninth Circuit first stated that warrantless searches of closed containers and their contents can be conducted at the border without particularized suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. 54 Nonetheless, the court noted that the Supreme Court has recognized two situations where reasonable suspicion is required to conduct a search of personal property: (1) when the search is destructive, and (2) when the search is conducted in a particularly offensive manner. 55 Outside of these two situations, reasonable suspicion is not required to search property, regardless of the nature of the property being searched. Thus, the Ninth Circuit refused to take into consideration any special qualities of laptops that may distinguish them from other containers, such as a laptop s capability of storing large amounts of private data. Indeed, the court did not find the search of a laptop to be intrinsically offensive simply because a laptop had a large storage capacity. 56 Instead, the court treated border searches of laptops no differently from border searches of any other type of personal property. 57 The Ninth Circuit, in its analysis, rejected the use of an intrusiveness analysis. An intrusiveness analysis would require a customs officer to evaluate the potential intrusiveness of each search he wished to conduct on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether reasonable suspicion would be needed to justify the search. 58 The court instead adopted a categorical approach to warrantless border searches: so long as the search is of a physical object rather than a person s body, reasonable suspicion is not required if the search is not physically destructive or particularly offensive. 48 Id. (declining to consider the issue because arguments not raised by a party in its opening briefs are deemed waived) F.3d 1003 (9 th Cir. 2008). 50 Id. at Id. 52 Id. 53 Id. 54 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. 58 Id. at Congressional Research Service 6
10 The Ninth Circuit also refused to apply a least restrictive means test to evaluate the constitutionality of a border agent s chosen method of conducting the search. 59 Thus, under the court s analysis, a border agent seemingly can conduct a search without having to determine whether a less intrusive means is available. The argument in favor of this categorical approach is that it appears easier for border agents to follow. On the other hand, the breadth of the Ninth Circuit s ruling apparently allows border agents, so long as they avoid searching a person s body, almost total discretion in determining both when, and in what manner, they may search personal property. Finally, the Ninth Circuit refused to recognize a First Amendment protection of expressive materials searched at the border. Similar to the reasoning in Ickes, the court held that doing so could protect terrorist communications, create an unworkable standard for government agents, and contravene Supreme Court precedent. 60 United States v. Seljan The majority opinion in United States v. Seljan reaffirmed Arnold by holding that an incidental search of a letter s content at the border did not require reasonable suspicion. 61 However, a dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski argued that reasonable suspicion was required because a letter contains personal thoughts that the letter s author would expect to be normally immune from search, especially absent suspicion of wrongdoing. Although the facts of this case only involve letters, the analyses of both the majority and dissenting opinions address the search of text, and thus would seem to apply to written communications generally, including electronic communications. In this case, a customs official discovered a letter soliciting sex from a child while searching a package being mailed to the Philippines. The search of the letter s contents was upheld even though the scope of the statute authorizing the search was limited to the interdiction of undeclared currency transported across the U.S. border. 62 Indeed, the Seljan majority specifically cited Ramsey, arguably the seminal case concerning the border search doctrine, in holding that an envelope containing personal correspondence is not uniquely protected from search at the border. 63 Moreover, the court found additional justification for the search by concluding that it was not unreasonable under the circumstances because the customs official did not read the contents of the letter. Rather, he merely scanned it with his eyes, which then gave rise to the reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct that justified a more exacting examination of the letter s contents. 64 In contrast, Judge Kozinksi, in his dissent, argued that the Fourth Amendment provides heightened protections for expressive materials at the border. 65 He made two arguments to support this proposition. The first is based on the Fourth Amendment s text, which contains a specific prohibition against the unreasonable search and seizure of papers. Judge Kozinski 59 Id. 60 Id. at F.3d 993 (9 th Cir. 2008). 62 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at 1014 (Kozinski, J., dissenting). Congressional Research Service 7
11 argued that this specific prohibition signals the Framers desire to insulate expressive content, and the personal thoughts contained therein, from unnecessary government search. 66 In support of this interpretation, Judge Kozinski cited Entick v. Carrington, an English common law case which would have been familiar to the Framers, which rejected the government s claim of unrestrained power to search personal papers and held that the searches and seizures of documents violated English common law. 67 According to his analysis, the prevailing view at the time of Entick was that a search of private papers was every bit as intrusive as a body search, which, if accurate, would indicate that the Framers intended individualized suspicion to be required to support a search of papers even at the border. 68 Second, Judge Kozinski also distinguished Seljan from past Supreme Court precedent by characterizing the border search exception as a means to facilitate the interdiction of smuggled contraband. 69 Thus, according to Judge Kozinski, the border search exception should be limited to the search of containers, primarily for the purpose of uncovering contraband, and should not be applied to facilitate the search of expressive materials. 70 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Policy on Border Laptop Searches U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the primary agency entrusted with border security, has disclosed a policy document which outlines the procedures to be used when conducting border searches of laptops. The policy, dated July 16, 2008, states that it is meant to provide guidance for CBP officers regarding the border search of information contained in documents and electronic devices. 71 The policy paper states that CBP officers who are conducting a warrantless border search of information, may, without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, 72 review and analyze information transported by any individual attempting to enter, reenter, depart, pass through or reside in the United States. If necessary, these officers also have the discretion to detain documents and electronic devices for a reasonable period of time in order to conduct a thorough search. This information will only be returned, and copies destroyed, if it is determined after review of the information that there is no probable cause of wrongdoing. Pursuant to this policy, individualized suspicion is not required if a CBP officer needs to detain information that must be translated or decrypted. If the information is not in a foreign language and is unencrypted, but otherwise technical in nature, a CBP officer may only detain the information for subject matter assistance if there is a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. If 66 Id. at (Kozinski, J., dissenting). 67 Id. at 1017 (Kozinksi, J., dissenting) citing Entick v. Harrington, 19 Howell s State Trials 1029, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (1765). 68 Id. (Kozinski, J., dissenting). 69 Id. at (Kozinski, J., dissenting). 70 Id. at (Kozinski, J., dissenting). 71 Policy Regarding Border Search of Information (July 16, 2008). Customs and Border Protection Policy Document. Available at 72 Presumably, an individualized suspicion standard is synonymous with or perhaps even weaker than a reasonable suspicion standard. This is because the Supreme Court has rebuked the use by lower federal courts of standards of suspicion other than probable cause or reasonable suspicion. See Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. at 541. Congressional Research Service 8
12 assistance from another agency is required, CBP should receive it within 15 days of the detention of the information. If more time is required, CBP can extend the detention for seven-day terms. If, upon review of the information, a CBP officer determines that there is probable cause of wrongdoing, the CBP officer may retain the originals and all copies of the relevant information. Absent probable cause, the CBP officer may only retain information related to immigration matters. The policy also includes special provisions applicable to certain categories of information. Business information, for example, should be treated as business confidential information and CBP officers should take reasonable care to protect it from unauthorized disclosure. These special provisions provide protections analogous to protections of paper documents. CBP officers also may not read correspondences contained in sealed letter class mail without an appropriate search warrant or consent. However, correspondence transmitted by private courier, such as Federal Express or UPS, is not considered to be mail and may be searched without individualized suspicion. There is also a provision which states that CBP officers should first seek advice from the U.S. Attorney s office or the Associate/Assistant Chief Counsel of CBP before conducting a search of information claimed by the border-crosser to be covered by attorney-client privilege. CBP has characterized the policy paper as an internal policy statement that creates no private right. To the extent that CBP s characterization of this document as an internal policy statement is correct, an individual who alleges a violation of this policy by a CBP officer would not have a cause of action available under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to seek redress. 73 Conclusion It is arguable that there is a higher expectation of privacy surrounding the contents of laptops than other types of physical property, such as vehicle interiors. Even when a vehicle search involves an onerous and time-consuming inspection of a gasoline tank, some would argue that the expectation of privacy surrounding the vehicle and its contents does not appear to be as high as the expectation of privacy regarding the contents of a laptop, which often contains private thoughts or other forms of privileged information. On the other hand, laptop searches are not as intrusive as strip or body-cavity searches, where the expectation of privacy surrounding one s body is clearly higher. 74 Although the Ninth Circuit in Arnold has analogized laptop searches to all other searches of personalty, other federal circuits may agree with Judge Kozinski in holding that the government owes greater deference to the privacy interest surrounding laptops. In addition to privacy interests, courts have taken a range of other concerns into account when determining whether reasonable suspicion must justify a warrantless border search. For example, when courts have conducted border search analyses, they have frequently considered potential harms resulting from illegal materials smuggled into the United States through laptops and electronic storage devices. As stated in Ramsey, The border search exception is grounded in the 73 While CBP characterizes this statement as a policy statement, it is conceivable that some might argue that this document is a substantive rule that could only be put into effect through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. Such substantive rules are reviewable under the APA. For more information on the distinction between policy statements and substantive rules, see Jeffrey S. Lubbers, A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking 94 (4 th ed. 2006). 74 Chase, 503 F.2d 571 (strip searches require reasonable suspicion); Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (alimentary canal search justified by reasonable suspicion). Congressional Research Service 9
13 recognized right of the sovereign to control... who and what may enter the country. 75 Laptops can present a challenge to the nation s ability to control what enters its borders because the vast and compact storage capacity of laptops can be used to smuggle illegal materials. In light of this, courts have held that routine searches of laptops at the border may be justified because of the strong government interest in preventing the dissemination of child pornography and other forms of obscene material that may be contained in laptops. 76 Another justification may be to facilitate searches of laptops owned by suspected terrorists, which may contain information related to a planned terrorist attack. 77 On the other hand, if customs officials can conduct laptop border searches without the need for reasonable suspicion, there is the potential for customs officials to conduct targeted searches based on justifications prohibited by the Constitution. For example, if a customs official could conduct a search without providing cause, it may be more difficult to detect unlawful bases for the searches because the official would not need to explain why he conducted the search. Such concerns suggest that resolving the issues surrounding laptop border searches will involve striking a careful balance between national security and civil liberties. The Ninth Circuit, by equating the privacy interest implicated in personal information with that surrounding normal personal effects, has adopted a categorical approach to the border search doctrine. The court has concluded that the search of all personal property does not require reasonable suspicion unless the search is conducted in a manner that is destructive or particularly offensive. 78 So far, the Ninth Circuit is the only circuit to have explicitly stated that such searches do not require reasonable suspicion. Whether other federal circuits adopt this approach or, in the same vein as Judge Kozinksi, give credence to the notion that a heightened expectation of privacy surrounds expressive materials, thus requiring reasonable suspicion before being searched, is an open question. Legislative Proposals A bill introduced in the 111 th Congress, the Securing our Borders and our Data Act of 2009 (H.R. 239), would prohibit laptop searches based solely on border search authority. 79 The legislation would establish fundamental rules prohibiting a federal border officer from searching or seizing a digital electronic device or electronic storage media based solely on the power of the United States to search and seize the effects of individuals seeking entry into the country. Instead, the legislation would allow such searches only in cases where border officers have reasonable suspicion that a device contains criminal evidence. Devices could be seized only if constitutional authority other than border search authority provided a justification. The bill would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to promulgate rules regarding: maximum time periods during which border officers can detain devices; owners rights to retrieve detained devices; and 75 Ramsey, 431 U.S. at See, e.g., New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 765 (1982) (holding that child pornography does not enjoy First Amendment protections because the government has a compelling state interest in preventing the sexual abuse of children and that the distribution of child pornography is intrinsically related to that state interest). 77 See Ickes, 393 F.3d at Arnold, 533 F.3d at The Securing our Borders and our Data Act of 2009, H.R. 239, 111 th Cong. (2009). Congressional Research Service 10
14 strategies for maintaining the integrity of all information detained and shared with other government agencies. 80 The Border Security Search Accountability Act of 2009 (H.R. 1726) would mandate that the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection promulgate a rule with respect to the scope of procedural and record-keeping requirements associated with border security searches of electronic devices. 81 The rule would require that commercial information be handled in a manner consistent with all laws and regulations governing such information, that electronic searches be conducted in front of a supervisor, that a determination of the number of days such information could be retained without probable cause be made, that the individual whose information was seized be notified if the information is entered into an electronic database, that an individual receive a receipt if his device is seized during a border search, that an individual subject to a border search of an electronic device receive notice as to how he can report any abuses or concerns related to the search, that the rights of individuals with regard to border searches be posted at all ports of entry, that a privacy impact assessment of the rule be made, and that a civil rights impact assessment of the rule be made. 82 Author Contact Information Yule Kim Legislative Attorney ykim@crs.loc.gov, This legislation is identical to a bill introduced during the 110 th Congress. See Securing Our Borders and Our Data Act of 2008, H.R. 6702, 110 th Cong. (2008). Another related bill introduced during the 110 th Congress, H.R. 6588, would have prohibited laptop searches based on the United States border search authority but permitted laptop searches conducted under any other federal authority. See Electronic Device Privacy Act of 2008, H.R. 6588, 110 th Cong. (2008). 81 Border Security Search Accountability Act of 2009, H.R. 1726, 111 th Cong. (2009). 82 This bill is similar to H.R. 6869, introduced in the 110 th Congress, which would have directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue rules regarding the scope and procedural requirements associated with border security searches of electronic devices. See Border Security Search Accountability Act of 2008, H.R. 6869, 110 th Cong. (2008). Congressional Research Service 11
Your Laptop, Please: The Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices at the United States Border
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 24 Issue 1 Article 28 January 2009 Your Laptop, Please: The Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices at the United States Border Sunil Bector Follow this and additional
More informationCBLDF Advisory: Legal Hazards of Crossing International Borders With Comic Book Art
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006-3401 Robert Corn-Revere 202.973.4225 tel 202.973.4499 fax bobcornrevere@dwt.com CBLDF Advisory: Legal Hazards of Crossing International Borders
More informationUSA v. Aleman-Figuereo
2004 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-15-2004 USA v. Aleman-Figuereo Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-4506 Follow this and
More informationCASE NO. 1D James T. Miller, and Laura Nezami, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JEFFREY SCOTT FAWDRY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.
More information709 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018). 5 Id. at Id. at Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FORENSIC SEARCHES OF DIGITAL INFORMATION AT THE BORDER ELEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT BORDER SEARCHES OF PROPERTY REQUIRE NO SUSPICION. United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir.
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cr-00-JSW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 0 Plaintiff, No. CR 0-00 JSW v. ANDREW
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DEL RIO DIVISION. v. DR-07-CR-786(1)-AML ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DEL RIO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DR-07-CR-786(1)-AML MICHAEL SCOTT MCAULEY, Defendant. ORDER A hearing on the Defendant s
More informationTHE FUTURE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN A DIGITAL EVIDENCE CONTEXT: WHERE WOULD THE SUPREME COURT DRAW THE ELECTRONIC LINE AT THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER?
THE FUTURE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN A DIGITAL EVIDENCE CONTEXT: WHERE WOULD THE SUPREME COURT DRAW THE ELECTRONIC LINE AT THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER? Patrick E. Corbett INTRODUCTION... 1264 I. ABIDOR V.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-3-2006 USA v. King Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1839 Follow this and additional
More informationKnow Your Rights ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION. Protecting Rights and Defending Freedom on the Electronic Frontier eff.org
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Protecting Rights and Defending Freedom on the Electronic Frontier eff.org Know Your Rights Your computer, phone, and other digital devices hold vast amounts of personal
More information2018 PA Super 183 : : : : : : : : :
2018 PA Super 183 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. TAREEK ALQUAN HEMINGWAY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 684 WDA 2017 Appeal from the Order March 31, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION November 6, 2014 9:00 a.m. v No. 310416 Kent Circuit Court MAXIMILIAN PAUL GINGRICH, LC No. 11-007145-FH
More informationMINNESOTA V. DICKERSON United States Supreme Court 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)
MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON United States Supreme Court 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) In this case, the Supreme Court considers whether the seizure of contraband detected through a police
More informationThe Perceived Intrusiveness of Searching Electronic Devices at the Border: An Empirical Study
The Perceived Intrusiveness of Searching Electronic Devices at the Border: An Empirical Study Matthew B. Kugle4 It is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect,
More informationCase 8:13-cr PWG Document 203 Filed 07/28/14 Page 1 of 8. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division
Case 8:13-cr-00100-PWG Document 203 Filed 07/28/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * v. Criminal Case No.: PWG-13-100
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HECTOR ESCATON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 10-1011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HECTOR ESCATON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOURTEENTH
More informationUNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS U N I T E D S T A T E S, ) Misc. Dkt. No. 2009-15 Appellant ) ) v. ) ) ORDER Airman First Class (E-3) ) ADAM G. COTE, ) USAF, ) Appellee ) Special Panel
More informationCourt Review: Volume 42, Issue 2 - Eroding Fourth Amendment Protections at the Border: An Analysis of United States v.
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association American Judges Association July 2005 Court Review: Volume
More informationNO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH CIRCUIT SPRING TERM 2019 HECTOR ESCATON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
NO. 10-1011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH CIRCUIT SPRING TERM 2019 HECTOR ESCATON, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, Appellee, APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN November 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: All the Justices PHILLIP JEROME MURPHY v. Record No. 020771 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN November 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal,
More informationLaptop Searches at the United States Borders and the Border Search Exception to the Fourth Amendment
Boston College Law Review Volume 48 Issue 4 Number 4 Article 4 9-1-2007 Laptop Searches at the United States Borders and the Border Search Exception to the Fourth Amendment Christine A. Coletta Follow
More informationTEXARKANA, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS MANUAL. TPCA Best Practices Recognition Program Reference Searches Without a Warrant
Effective Date February 1, 2008 Reference Amended Date Distribution All Personnel City Manager City Attorney TPCA Best Practices Recognition Program Reference Review Date January 1, 2012 Pages 5 This Operations
More informationTestimony of Kevin S. Bankston, Policy Director of New America s Open Technology Institute
Testimony of Kevin S. Bankston, Policy Director of New America s Open Technology Institute On Proposed Amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Before The Judicial Conference Advisory
More informationProtecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment
Order Code RL31826 Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment Updated June 27, 2008 Yule Kim Legislative Attorney American Law Division Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border
More informationATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT. Policy and Procedure General Order: 1.06 Order Title: Strip and Body Cavity Searches
ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT Policy and Procedure General Order: 1.06 Order Title: Strip and Body Cavity Searches Original Issue Date 10/02/17 Reissue / Effective Date 10/09/17 Compliance Standards:
More informationThe Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Swiss Confederation, hereinafter referred to as "the Contracting Parties";
Draft AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION REGARDING MUTUAL ASSISTANCE BETWEEN THEIR CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIONS The Government of
More informationMINNESOTA v. DICKERSON 113 S.Ct (1993) United States Supreme Court
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 19 Spring 4-1-1995 MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON 113 S.Ct. 2130 (1993) United States Supreme Court Follow this and additional
More informationCase 1:10-cv ERK Document 15-2 Filed 01/28/11 Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT A
Case 1:10-cv-04059-ERK Document 15-2 Filed 01/28/11 Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT A Case 1:10-cv-04059-ERK Document 15-2 Filed 01/28/11 Page 2 of 11 DISTRIBUTION: ICE DIRECTIVE NO.: 7-6.1 ISSUE DATE: August 18,2009
More informationSuspicionless Border Searches of Electronic Devices: Legal and Privacy Concerns with The Department of Homeland Security s Policy
Suspicionless Border Searches of Electronic Devices: Legal and Privacy Concerns with The Department of Homeland Security s Policy A REPORT BY THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT S LIBERTY AND SECURITY COMMITTEE May
More informationCRS Report for Congress
Order Code RL31826 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Protecting Our Perimeter: Border Searches under the Fourth Amendment Updated May 17, 2005 Stephen R. Viña Legislative Attorney American
More informationSupreme Court of Louisiana
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 3 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 21st day of January, 2009, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2008-KK-1002
More informationSTATE V. GUTIERREZ, 2004-NMCA-081, 136 N.M. 18, 94 P.3d 18 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO DANIEL GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. GUTIERREZ, 2004-NMCA-081, 136 N.M. 18, 94 P.3d 18 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO DANIEL GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 23,047 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 544 U. S. (2005) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT People v. Devone 1 (decided December 24, 2008) Damien Devone was arrested for two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance.
More informationPLAIN VIEW. Priscilla M. Grantham
PLAIN VIEW Priscilla M. Grantham GENERAL PRINCIPLES: If in the course of a lawful search, police see items that are incriminating or have evidentiary value, under the plain view doctrine they may be able
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEVIN M. FRIERSON Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2007-C-2329
More informationROY BERGER BASS OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. March 3, 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, 1 and Kinser, JJ. Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, ROY BERGER BASS OPINION BY v. Record No. 990894 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. March 3, 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
More informationCRS Report for Congress
Order Code RL31826 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Protecting Our Perimeter: Border Searches under the Fourth Amendment Updated May 17, 2005 Stephen R. Viña Legislative Attorney American
More informationS11G0644. HAWKINS v. THE STATE. This Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to consider whether
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 23, 2012 S11G0644. HAWKINS v. THE STATE. HINES, Justice. This Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to consider whether that Court properly determined
More informationProtecting Our Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment
Order Code RL31826 Protecting Our Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment Updated December 14, 2006 Stephen R. Viña Legislative Attorney American Law Division Protecting our Perimeter: Border
More informationFOR IMMIGRATION OFFICERS M-69
U.S. Department of Justice THE LAW OF ARREST, SEARCH, AND SEIZURE FOR IMMIGRATION OFFICERS M-69 January 1993 Edition OFFICIAL USE ONLY IMMIGRATION AND NATDRAOZATION SERVICE THIS MATERIAL IS THE PROPERTY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.
Case :-cr-0-ben Document Filed 0// PageID.0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. SERGIO CABALLERO, Plaintiff, Defendant. CASE NO. cr-ben
More informationTYSON KENNETH CURLEY OPINION BY v. Record No ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN July 26, 2018 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: All the Justices TYSON KENNETH CURLEY OPINION BY v. Record No. 170732 ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN July 26, 2018 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Tyson Kenneth Curley
More informationGENERAL ORDER PORT WASHINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL ORDER PORT WASHINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: STRIP SEARCHES NUMBER: 1.7.5 ISSUED: 5/5/09 SCOPE: All Sworn Personnel EFFECTIVE: 5/5/09 DISTRIBUTION: General Orders Manual RESCINDS 1.8 AMENDS
More informationCase 3:16-mc RS Document 84 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I.
Case :-mc-0-rs Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 In the Matter of the Search of Content Stored at Premises Controlled by Google Inc. and as Further
More informationDRAFT [8-4-15] TUFTS UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENTAL COLLEGE FALL 2015
DRAFT [8-4-15] TUFTS UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENTAL COLLEGE FALL 2015 COURSE: EXP-0070-F The Law of Search and Seizure in the Digital Age: Applying the Fourth Amendment to Current Technology Tuesday 6:00-8:30PM
More informationTeam R8 Counsel for Respondent
Docket No. 10-1011 In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HECTOR ESCATONH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States BRIEF
More informationAssessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police
Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police Michael C. Dorf FindLaw Columnist Special to CNN.com Thursday, June 24, 2004 Posted: 3:57 PM EDT (1957 GMT) (FindLaw) -- In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
R18 Docket NO. 04-422 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Fall Term 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. AMANDA KOEHLER, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationBill C-23, Preclearance Act, 2016
Bill C-23, Preclearance Act, 2016 CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION IMMIGRATION LAW, CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COMMODITY TAX SECTIONS March 2017 500-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél : 613.237.2925
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Law Commons
Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1991 Criminal Law--International Jurisdiction--Federal Child Pornography Statute Applies to Extraterritorial Acts,
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States HECTOR ESCATON, PETITIONER RESPONDENT
No. 10-1011 In the Supreme Court of the United States HECTOR ESCATON, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN: CIRCUIT COURT: RACINE COUNTY: Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
STATE OF WISCONSIN: CIRCUIT COURT: RACINE COUNTY: STATE OF WISCONSIN, v. DAMIEN BELL, Plaintiff, Case No. 2007CF000744 Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE NOW COMES the above-named defendant,
More informationConstitutional Law - Search and Seizure - Hot Pursuit
Louisiana Law Review Volume 28 Number 3 The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1966-1967 Term: A Symposium April 1968 Constitutional Law - Search and Seizure - Hot Pursuit Dan E. Melichar Repository
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS. Judgment Rendered June
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 KA 2009 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ll n MATTHEW G L CONWAY Judgment Rendered June 6 2008 Appealed from the 18th Judicial District Court In and for
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT T.T., a child, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D18-442 [August 29, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
More informationa) The entry is limited in purpose and scope to discovery of a number as to which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy;
Crestwood Police General Order Warrantless Vehicle Searches Purpose: The purpose of this directive is to provide general guidelines and procedures for commissioned personnel to follow in conducting vehicle
More informationCase 6:13-cr EFM Document 102 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:13-cr-10176-EFM Document 102 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 13-10176-01-EFM WALTER ACKERMAN,
More informationtraditional exceptions to warrant requirement
traditional exceptions to warrant requirement National Center For Justice And The Rule Of Law University of Mississippi School of Law Thomas K. Clancy Director www.ncjrl.org materials 1. powerpoints 2.
More information2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
151 F.3d 1354 Page 1 West Headnotes Briefs and Other Related Documents United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
More information5 Officer Schenk also testified that, after he brought Heaven to the office, the loss prevention officer immediately returned to Heaven s shopping
1a APPENDIX A COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 14CA0961 El Paso County District Court No. 13CR4796 Honorable David S. Prince, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More information23 Motions To Suppress Tangible Evidence
23 Motions To Suppress Tangible Evidence Part A. Introduction: Tools and Techniques for Litigating Search and Seizure Claims 23.01 OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTER AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE The Fourth Amendment
More informationJUSTIFICATION FOR STOPS AND ARRESTS
JUSTIFICATION FOR STOPS AND ARRESTS PLUS INFORMANTS slide #1 THOMAS K. CLANCY Director National Center for Justice and Rule of Law The University of Mississippi School of Law University, MS 38677 Phone:
More information1 HRUZ, J. 1 Joshua Vitek appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, based on the
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 27, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2011 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-4197 RAMON LUIS OLIVERAS, Appellee. / Opinion filed July 22, 2011 Appeal
More informationNo. 11SA231 - People v. Coates Suppression of Evidence. The People brought an interlocutory appeal pursuant to
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.ht m Opinions are also posted
More informationI. Introduction. fact that most people carry a cell phone, there has been relatively little litigation deciding
CELL PHONE SEARCHES IN SCHOOLS: THE NEW FRONTIER ANDREA KLIKA I. Introduction In the age of smart phones, what once was a simple device to make phone calls has become a personal computer that stores a
More informationDocket No In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. March Term, 2019 HECTOR ESCATON, Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
Docket No. 10-1011 In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES March Term, 2019 HECTOR ESCATON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to Case No. 18-3939, Argued September
More informationUSA v. Gerrett Conover
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-12-2016 USA v. Gerrett Conover Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al. Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD PENNINGTON,
More information1 of 5 9/16/2014 2:02 PM
1 of 5 9/16/2014 2:02 PM Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian
More informationSTATE V. GANT: DEPARTING FROM THE BRIGHT-LINE BELTON RULE IN AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST
STATE V. GANT: DEPARTING FROM THE BRIGHT-LINE BELTON RULE IN AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST Holly Wells INTRODUCTION In State v. Gant, 1 the Arizona Supreme Court, in a 3 to 2 decision, held that
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 97-CO-276. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationDePaul Law Review. DePaul College of Law. Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall-Winter Article 16
DePaul Law Review Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1960 Article 16 Constitutional Law - Statute Authorizing Search without Warrant Upheld by Reason of Equal Division of Supreme Court - Ohio ex rel. Eaton
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * The defendant, George H. Beamon, Jr., was convicted of possession of cocaine
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 13, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff - Appellee, GEORGE
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D., 2007
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D., 2007 Opinion filed July 5, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-2532 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE 09/25/2017 IN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE TENNESSEE RULES OF PROCEDURE & EVIDENCE No. ADM2017-01892 ORDER The Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice & Procedure
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2003 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-19-2003 USA v. Mercedes Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 00-2563 Follow this and additional
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 18, 2013 v No. 310063 Kent Circuit Court MARCIAL TRUJILLO, LC No. 11-002271-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSubject FIELD INTERVIEWS, INVESTIGATIVE STOPS/DETENTIONS, WEAPONS PAT-DOWNS & SEARCHES. DRAFT 7 April By Order of the Police Commissioner
Subject STOPS/DETENTIONS, WEAPONS PAT-DOWNS & Date Published Page DRAFT 7 April 2018 1 of 18 POLICY By Order of the Police Commissioner It is the policy of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to conduct
More informationDefendants. Pending before the Court is a motion by defendants Caroline Tjepkema,
Sun v. Tjepkema et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSEPH C. SUN, v. Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 09-CV-35A OFFICER TJEPKEMA et al., Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION Pending
More informationPOCOLA POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SUBJECT SEARCH AND SEIZURE NUMBER: 8.000 EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/24/2015 SCHEDULED REVIEW DATE: DATE REVIEWED: APPROVED BY: 06/14/2016 ISSUE DATE: 12/14/2015 REVISION DATE: Chief Steve
More informationPHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE 5.28
PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE 5.28 Issued Date:01-25-13 Effective Date:01-25-13 Updated Date: 04-07-16 SUBJECT: SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTING RELATING TO TERRORISM 1. PURPOSE A. To track and
More informationAPPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse County: RAMONA A. GONZALEZ, Judge. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 21, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationVIRTUAL CERTAINTY IN A DIGITAL WORLD: THE SIXTH CIRCUIT S APPLICATION OF THE PRIVATE SEARCH DOCTRINE TO DIGITAL STORAGE DEVICES IN UNITED STATES
VIRTUAL CERTAINTY IN A DIGITAL WORLD: THE SIXTH CIRCUIT S APPLICATION OF THE PRIVATE SEARCH DOCTRINE TO DIGITAL STORAGE DEVICES IN UNITED STATES v. LICHTENBERGER Abstract: In 2015 in United States v. Lichtenberger,
More informationCHAPTER 3 SECTION VI 10/01/16 Vehicle Searches
CHAPTER 3 SECTION VI 10/01/16 Vehicle Searches I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide agency personnel with guidelines for the search of motor vehicles. II. POLICY It is the policy of this
More informationCase 1:12-cr RC Document 38 Filed 03/01/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. : v.
Case 1:12-cr-00231-RC Document 38 Filed 03/01/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : v. 12-CR-231 (RC) : JAMES HITSELBERGER : DEFENDANT S
More informationCITY OF ALMA FOIA POLICY 1. This policy is adopted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, MCL , et seq, as amended (Act). 2. Definitions.
CITY OF ALMA FOIA POLICY 1. This policy is adopted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231, et seq, as amended (Act). 2. Definitions. A. FOIA Coordinator means the City Manager or designee.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Crim. File No. 01-221 (PAM/ESS) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Dale Robert Bach, Defendant. This matter is before the Court
More informationTHE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND
10 THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW AND THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE SEARCHES WITHOUT WARRANTS DIVIDER 10 Honorable Mark J. McGinnis OBJECTIVES: After this session, you will be able
More informationDocket No Agenda 6-January THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. MARILYN LOVE, Appellee. Opinion filed April 18, 2002.
Docket No. 90806-Agenda 6-January 2002. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. MARILYN LOVE, Appellee. Opinion filed April 18, 2002. JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court: The
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RAYMOND WONG, No. 02-10070 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. CR-00-40069-CW Defendant-Appellant. OPINION Appeal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 547 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of thfe United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 06-2741 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, BERNARDO GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationINVESTIGATION OF ELECTRONIC DATA PROTECTED BY ENCRYPTION ETC DRAFT CODE OF PRACTICE
INVESTIGATION OF ELECTRONIC DATA PROTECTED BY ENCRYPTION ETC CODE OF PRACTICE Preliminary draft code: This document is circulated by the Home Office in advance of enactment of the RIP Bill as an indication
More informationSingapore: Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act
The Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not guarantee the accuracy of this document and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences of
More informationThe Burger Court Opinion Writing Database
The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database United States v. Montoya de Hernandez 473 U.S. 531 (1985) Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington University James F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. Louis
More informationCRS Report for Congress
Order Code RS21899 Updated May 9, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Summary Border Security: Key Agencies and Their Missions Blas Nuñez-Neto Analyst in Social Legislation Domestic
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 16-263 In the Supreme Court of the United States STAVROS M. GANIAS, v. UNITED STATES, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
More informationIn The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NEW YORK, -versus- AZIM HALL, REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
07-1568 In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NEW YORK, -versus- AZIM HALL, Petitioner, Respondent. REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The State of New York submits this reply
More information